As Brian Whitaker has already pointed out, Blears's 13 March letter to the MCB, suspending "engagement" with it pending the outcome of its investigation into the conduct of its deputy general secretary, Daud Abdullah, amounts to a piece of quite unwarranted Whitehall interference in the internal working of an independent body operating entirely legally in this country. In principle, whom the MCB chooses as its office-holders is none of Blears's business. The very unfortunate precedent she is trying to set reflects the practices of a totalitarian state – China perhaps, or Zimbabwe. I am shocked that such a mindset could emerge in the UK.

But I am also deeply upset as a democrat, a Jew and a Zionist – and as a passionate believer in freedom of expression who has debated publicly with Abdullah (through Press TV) on two occasions.

I do not agree with Abdullah's opinions on many matters. I find his views on the right of the Jews to self-determination to be deeply suspect. He seems to me to have adopted a dangerously uncritical (I would go so far as to say infantile) approach to the position of Jews in the American political order. His entire world view strikes me as utterly simplistic.

It is true that in signing the statement emanating from the recent Istanbul "Global Anti-Aggression Campaign" conference he appears to have taken sides in the recent conflict in Gaza. So what? His critics maintain that this statement also condoned violence against British troops, because it purported to offer an Islamic justification for (unspecified) action against the British military should it play any part in an international peace-keeping force that prevented the smuggling of arms into Gaza. But if this does indeed amount to incitement to violence, there is a simple remedy open to the British government: to prosecute Abdullah, at the appropriate time, in a British court.

The Istanbul declaration itself is a pathetic, muddled text, proclaiming a Muslim "victory" in Gaza. Some victory! The significance – if any – of the declaration lies in the harsh words it reserves for (and I quote) "the absence of any official and effective Arab and Islamic stance" in relation to the plight of Gaza and its inhabitants, and in its rejection of the Saudi-sponsored peace plan that would involve the recognition of Israel within the armistice lines of 1949. It is – throughout – an explicitly anti-Jewish document.

But if the MCB wishes to have as its deputy general-secretary a man who espouses such views, who is Blears to say otherwise? All that she has achieved by her ill-considered letter is to give publicity to a document, crafted in Istanbul, that might otherwise have been consigned (along with numerous similar declamations) to the dustbin of history.

Should the MCB dismiss Abdullah, or should he resign or be forced to resign, he will become a hero in the eyes of a great many British Muslims who (I suspect) currently have scant regard for him. In any case, he has already had the good sense to make a public clarification, declaring that he did not and does not condone attacks on British troops. So the MCB might well stand by him. What will Blears do then?

On the wider issue, to refuse to engage with a pressure group on the grounds Blears gives sets a very bad precedent. For instance, is Defra to say to animal welfare groups that it will not deal with any whose elected leaders have expressed any support for animal rights activists? Campaigning is presently under way for the presidency and other offices of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Are we to take it that Blears will not engage with anyone who has expressed support for Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which the UK government regards as illegal?

One has only to consider such scenarios for a moment to recognise how crass Blears has been in writing the letter, and how much better served the true interests of the British government will be if she now withdraws it with as much dignity as she and her department are able to muster.